From d6bab3c4af43e0cc80f2084f8eb79ef49a4e3b76 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Vladimir Mikryukov Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2024 20:07:00 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] add note about hash performance --- README.md | 13 +++++++++---- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index 32f6030..9dec7b5 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -206,10 +206,15 @@ hyperfine \ | xxhash+murmur3 | 2.273 ± 0.237 | 2.070 | 2.819 | 2.26 ± 0.27 | `Values are in seconds per 500,000 sequences (756,622,201 bp)` -As shown, xxHash and MurmurHash3 offer the best performance, while MD5 is the slowest among the tested algorithms. +As shown, xxHash and MurmurHash3 offer the best performance. +> [!NOTE] +> However, it's important to note that these values may depend on +> the instruction set of the CPU being used, as some processors may +> optimize specific algorithms differently (e.g., via `SIMD` or other hardware acceleration). +> For example, modern CPUs may use **SHA Extensions** to accelerate SHA-family algorithms. +> Additionally, the performance reported here is tied to the particular implementations +> of the hash algorithms used in `seqhasher`. Other implementations may yield different results, +> and these values should not be interpreted as a definitive ranking of the algorithms themselves. -### Processing large file - -Compare an `AWK`-based solution against the `seqhasher` binary.